Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashback: Oklahoma Spyware, FSF DRM, Lenovo Linux 135

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the name-calling-always-looks-good dept.
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including Oklahoma's Spyware Bill dies a quiet death, Lenovo denies ditching Linux, Mars rover escapes again, RIM CEO speaks out against unlimited wireless, Microsoft LiveMail gets ads, FSF anti-DRM campaign expands, and AT&T calls Wired to task over leaked documents -- Read on for details.

Oklahoma's Spyware Bill dies a quiet death. enforcer999 writes to tell us that the Oklahoma Computer Spyware Protection Act has been pretty much dismantled by the Senate review committee. From the article: "Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, the Senate author of the legislation, said revisions he had made to the bill were well received by those who had originally opposed it, but that after making the changes, the companies backing the measure -- which had included Microsoft and Symantec Corp. -- opposed it."

Lenovo denies ditching Linux. btornado writes "According to News.com, Lenovo has denied ditching Linux on their notebook computers. Lenovo actually plans to support Linux on its ThinkPads starting in the third quarter, in partnership with Novell. From the article: 'Customers of the recently introduced Lenovo 3000 units still won't have a preloaded option, however, because the small and midsize business customers that are the targets for those units have many different requirements, he said.'"

Mars rover escapes again. An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist is reporting that NASA's Mars Opportunity rover has freed itself from the sandy soil that ensnared it for more than a week. This is the second time the rover has gotten bogged down in a Martian sand trap. Both times, the rover has managed to escape to solid bedrock by churning its wheels in reverse."

RIM CEO speaks out against unlimited wireless. frdmfghtr writes "The president and co-CEO of Research in Motion seems to think that wireless data services providing unlimited data traffic for a flat monthly rate will have a 'devastating effect on wireless innovation.' From the article: '"No matter how you slice it, bandwidth is not free," he said. "If we don't set up economic incentives now, research and innovation for new networks won't happen for the future. We want companies to be encouraged to make efficient use of the network, so we don't cross over and use up all the capacity of the networks." Counters Jeff Pulver, the founder of Pulver Media, saying that (FTA) "unlimited bandwidth use in the wireless world is needed because access to the network is what spurs innovation."'"

Microsoft LiveMail gets ads. Blahbooboo3 writes to tell us BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft will be embedding advertising in their new e-mail client software, Windows Live Mail Desktop. Similar to Google's Gmail, it will serve ads based on the text of your mail messages. Microsoft's Active Search feature, being tested within Windows Live Mail Desktop, scans users' emails and displays potential search terms related to that email as well as text-based contextual ads. The effort is an example of the Windows Live ad-supported software initiative. Contextually relevant ads served by Microsoft-partner Kanoodle will be displayed next to each email message. Also, paid search links will be served by Microsoft adCenter when users conduct searches via a search box that's built into the mail interface.

FSF anti-DRM campaign expands. nanday writes "According to an article on Newsforge (Also owned by VA), the Free Software Foundation's Defective by Design campaign against Digital Rights Management expanded on Saturday, targeting Apple Stores in eight American cities. However, unlike the event outside WinHEC 2006 two weeks ago, this time the police and security guards were waiting when campaign volunteers arrived to demonstrate."

AT&amp:T calls Wired to task over leaked documents. John Young writes to tell us that AT&T is standing in opposition [PDF] to Wired's recent intervention and the unsealing of documents. AT&T stated that "Wired argues that it has a 'unique perspective in this case.' If that is anything other than hot air, it is a reference to the fact that Wired has leaked eight pages of what it claims are AT&T Proprietary documents--and did so despite actual knowledge that AT&T claims its documents contain trade secrets and the Court had ordered that such documents remain under seal. A 'unique perspective' indeed--that of the scofflaw. [...] Wired maintains that the Klein and Marcus Declarations should be unsealed in their entirety because "the course of events has overtaken the sealing order." The "course of events" to which Wired refers is, of course, its own leaking of subsets of the information that the Court ordered remain under seal. Wired's argument appears to be that because it has openly chosen to disregard the Court's order (not to mention AT&T's rights) the Court should reverse that order. Talk about chutzpah."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashback: Oklahoma Spyware, FSF DRM, Lenovo Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:05PM (#15536438) Homepage Journal
    And it will stifle innovation? Oh yeah, just like internet innovation was severely stifled as most of the pay-per-bit billing schemes fell over the last 10 years
    • by Carnildo (712617) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:14PM (#15536495) Homepage Journal
      And it will stifle innovation? Oh yeah, just like internet innovation was severely stifled as most of the pay-per-bit billing schemes fell over the last 10 years

      Wholesale bandwidth (what an ISP or hosting facility buys) is still sold by the bit. It's only at the retail level (ISP customers and some hosting plans) where there's no limit.
      • Uh, no. (Score:4, Informative)

        by jd (1658) <imipak AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @10:20PM (#15537067) Homepage Journal
        If you're a corporation, you might buy a T1, T3 or even a T4 line. (No sane person buys T2, as fractional T3 is usually going to be cheaper.) You might even buy a service plan that "guarantees" you a certain AVERAGE bit-rate (except that there are so many get-out clauses that the guarantee isn't worth the paper it is written on), but you NEVER pay per packet, and CERTAINLY NEVER pay per bit.


        (The closest I've ever seen to a pay-per-packet scheme was the old Packet Switch Stream service from British Telecom, which charged per connection to the X.25 exchange AND per minute of connection AND per K of data sent AND per unit of time you spent on the phone line to use their bloody server in the first place. Sure, there's a per-K in there, but it was so small as to be a negliagible fraction of the total cost. And that WAS to end-users, so even there the claim is incorrect.)


        Peer-to-Peer backbone routing is usually at a nominal cost, as the whole idea of peering is that each network accesses the other networks equally in all directions with no bias or preference. Of course, if the preferential service system goes into effect, the entire backbone will collapse. It's impossible to have preferential service in a totally peer-based network.

    • IMO, they should set it up like a Danish ISP. (Disclaimer: (a) I work for them. (b) I do not think they have great prices, but not insane ones either)

      They have a flat rate plan and a flexible rate plan. In the flexible rate plan you pay less for speed (good for users who use internet sparingly and don't want to wait when they finally do) and in the flat rate plan they pay more for speed, but they can get as many gigs a month as they want.

      The way I see it, this makes planning infrastructure much easier. A
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
      Jack Valenti, Home Recording of Copyrighted Works, Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, April 12, 1982

      Now look at all the money lost by the Hollywood studios in the 90's. Video recorders cleaned them out, I tell you. And the DVD nailed their coffin shut. All this is the reason we have no Movie/Recording industry in the US today.
    • Oh it's clear how this will doom innovation for all time. You see with free and unlimited access to the web people who would normally be innovating will now be tied up in flame wars and watching funny videos. Clearly their productivity would plummet and innovation would grind to a screeching halt. In fact we should destroy the internet completely in order to protect innovation.
    • Ok, let's debunk this here and now... 'devastating effect on wireless innovation.' A flat out lie from someone with a vested interest in keeping his fledgling "monopoly alive". Stand aside butt-wad, the train is coming through. "No matter how you slice it, bandwidth is not free," Actually, bandwidth through the airwaves belongs to the people, dumb-ass. Keep pushing, and see how quickly your product gets ignored... "If we don't set up economic incentives now" - read as "our business model blows dead
      • >Actually, bandwidth through the airwaves belongs to the people, dumb-ass

        Yes, but at some point you have to convert that air-borne signal into bits on the wire, which means investing in circuits, peering points, etc. Go price the cost of a dark circuit, such as a point to point DS/3. Then go price the cost of a DS/3 with IP though an ISP. The majority of the cost is the IP access.
    • I was thinking more in the same way roofnets had destroyed the cell phone industry in the year 2000, due to unlinited free VoIP. You didn't hear about that?
    • It is entirely possible that I am wrong, and this
      is conjecture based on things I heard. I used to work
      at a company that did a blackberry app. I did not work in
      the group doing the Blackberry client ( we did an
      app for the old blackberries, not the same as the
      email client they come with natively ), nor the
      server side, but I did work with them. My understanding
      is that the network that the blackberry traffic was
      going over was very limited in bandwidth. That team
      was having to be very stingy in how they used
      an
  • Oklahoma Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:05PM (#15536441) Homepage Journal
    They can work out law that classifies video games as harmful to minors, but they can't work out a law to protect their citizens from spyware.

    Glad to know they have their priorities straight.
    • See, this is how it works. If they pass bills 'protecting' people, regardless of how stupid the laws are, they can say they are at least doing something 'for' people. If the would be good laws get passed over, it's just fodder that nobody remembers.
    • I guess that means the spyware people were bribing them while the video game companies were not.
    • by sqlrob (173498) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:40PM (#15536620)
      Yeah, a bill (in it's original form) that let MS crawl your hard drive and forward data to cops, or delete anything they please is a good one that should be passed.

    • THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
    • and Symantec and McCafy and and the like have loads to gain from spy/virus ware being a wild west lawless wnciornment.
    • "[...] they can't work out a law to protect their citizens from spyware."

      Part of the issue is "what is spyware"?

      Once a week, my Mac tells Apple about all the versions of Apple-branded software on my computer so that Apple can check to see whether my software is up-to-date. Is that spyware? Well, yes it is. On the other hand, I approve of that kind of action.

      Needless to say, corporations don't like the idea of somebody defining "spyware" because they might inadvertently trip over it. You might have to ex
      • by ragefan (267937)
        Once a week, my Mac tells Apple about all the versions of Apple-branded software on my computer so that Apple can check to see whether my software is up-to-date. Is that spyware? Well, yes it is. On the other hand, I approve of that kind of action.

        But it is possible to have the server tell the client what the latest versions are released and the client-side update application can decide to download it (think just about all linux updaters (apt-get, yum, portage, etc). These corporations choose to collect thi

    • I would prefer to have them continue to kill any bill that allows Microsoft to riffle through my computer at will.
    • I have just one thing to say about that...
      REMEBER TUTTLE!
  • AT&T (Score:2, Funny)

    by drpimp (900837)
    AT&amp:T ????

    Dooh! Damn shift key.
    • Wired's argument appears to be that because it has openly chosen to disregard the Court's order (not to mention AT&T's rights) the Court should reverse that order. Talk about chutzpah."

      To sum up Wired's circular arguement:

      "No, Your Honor, I did not rape that minor. I was nowhere near there that night, I never even met her, she told me she was 18, and the sex was consentual."
  • by garcia (6573) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:06PM (#15536450) Homepage
    The president and co-CEO of Research in Motion seems to think that wireless data services providing unlimited data traffic for a flat monthly rate will have a 'devastating effect on wireless innovation.' From the article: '"No matter how you slice it, bandwidth is not free," he said. "If we don't set up economic incentives now, research and innovation for new networks won't happen for the future. We want companies to be encouraged to make efficient use of the network, so we don't cross over and use up all the capacity of the networks." Counters Jeff Pulver, the founder of Pulver Media, saying that (FTA) "unlimited bandwidth use in the wireless world is needed because access to the network is what spurs innovation."'"

    I went with T-mobile for two reasons. 1) They are the only carrier that has a viable portable device for Internet connectivity and 2) They have an unlimited data plan at a flat rate $20.00 with T-mobile mobile phone service or $29.99 without.

    To claim that this somehow creates problems with innovation is insane! Hell, I certainly would NOT be paying per MB charges and I'm sure that many others would agree. People in the US are too used to "unlimited" connections (from the dialup days through today). Per MB/GB transfer charges would fall flat on their faces in areas with competition. Luckily, in the mobile market, there's plenty of that.
    • Yeah, and just imagine if this is how your cable company charged for your home internet access. Just because it's wireless on the go doesn't mean suddnely it should be billed by the minute or byte.
  • NASA should really change Opportunity's name the T-1000.
  • by antic (29198) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:09PM (#15536467)
    Could one reason behind the slow government action against spyware and spam be that those voting on and lobbying for/against the issue just don't spend enough time with a standard home internet connection to see what life on the net is like with these two annoyances?

    We should be able to surf the net without risk of being hijacked and we should be able to run websites and forums without copping spam each and every day. If you run a web-based business or a bunch of websites, dealing with spam can quickly become a significant headache that chews valuable time.

    For how long have spam and spyware been real issues for real internet users without strong action from those who could be increasing penalties and tracking these scum down?
  • by nuzak (959558) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:10PM (#15536472) Journal
    Here's a helpful translation tip, you can just mentally substitute the second phrase for the first whenever you encounter a corporate talking head saying it:

          "would stifle innovation" ---> "would impact our bottom line"

    Hope that helps.
  • There is a reason RIM states that there shouldn't be unlimited bandwidth plans... the idea is simple, there is limited bandwidth. In the wired world, you can always add more wires. This doesn't apply to wireless, if everyone in an area is using huge amounts of bandwidth, everyone's performance goes down. There is a limited amount of frequencies to operate on. Allowing people to create things that are bandwidth hogs ultimately puts everyone's use of wireless at risk. Whereas, putting a price on bandwidt
    • There are phsyical limits with wired connectivity too.

      The point is, the limit should be a specific rate, and unlimited *usage*, as opposed to a per-bit-transferred scheme. People will always be willing to pay for faster connections, but most fear the possibility that some uncontrolled event or fraud will run their bill up to insane amounts - that isn't a factor with a limited rate - all that happens is it will just hit the rate limit and choke.
    • But the problem is the choke can happen because of everyone else... I could be using bandwidth very efficiently, and if those around me are using it "carelessly", everyone pays the price, even the one being efficient.
    • If it is limited, then wont it be scarce? And wont that
      scarcity lead naturaly to higher prices, driving people
      to be frugal with it?
    • And if demand goes up for a limited resource, the price of unlimited plans will go up or, more likely, they will find a way to provide additional bandwith.

      What he is trying to defend against is the destruction of the current business model with charges for every service. If you just buy an umlimited data plan, you can use anybody to send your email etc. and you don't need specialized devices (like blackberrry's). This is especially true for casual users.

      Users want fixed rate plans where you also won't be sh
  • Fore !! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227)

    "New Scientist is reporting that NASA's Mars Opportunity rover has freed itself from the sandy soil that ensnared it for more than a week. This is the second time the rover has gotten bogged down in a Martian sand trap. Both times, the rover has managed to escape to solid bedrock by churning its wheels in reverse."

    http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/featu res/F_Better_Game_of_Golf.html [nasa.gov]

    I try to tell them all they need is to put some backspin on it to avoid thoose sand traps, but do they liste

  • Jolley's folly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:39PM (#15536617)
    Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, the Senate author of the legislation, said revisions he had made to the bill were well received by those who had originally opposed it, but that after making the changes, the companies backing the measure -- which had included Microsoft and Symantec Corp. -- opposed it."


    Translation: My corporate masters are not pleased.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The Blackberry is text based. It is a very efficient way to communicate bandwidth wise. Naturally, RIM thinks limited bandwidth is a good thing. It's sort of like the rat catcher badmouthing cats, innit?
  • by DataPath (1111) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @08:41PM (#15536626)
    I thought that Wired DIDN'T violate the court ordered seal on the documents because the court order only prevented parties to the case from releasing the documents available to them by means of the case, and couldn't possibly apply to third-party sources that have the documents and aren't part of the case.
  • Seriously, a member of the media taking such a bold stand against government and corporations these days? I thought the Cubs would win the World Series first.
  • Customers of the recently introduced Lenovo 3000 units still won't have a preloaded option, however, because the small and midsize business customers that are the targets for those units have many different requirements

    Emphasis mine, of course.

    So, in corporate retardo-speak, "many different requirements" now means you should reduce the number of options?

    • So, in corporate retardo-speak, "many different requirements" now means you should reduce the number of options?

      It costs more to make and keep more SKUs in a warehouse. If a particular market segment requires so many different SKUs that serving the segment is unprofitable, then not serving the segment maximizes return to shareholders.

      • 10 years ago we had no hybrid vehicles on the market (major manufacturers). None of the domestic big three thought there would ever be a market for them, they sold zero...today? Fastest growing market segment. While they waited around and just kept building the same old things with some new shiny different looking sheetmetal and gas hog engines, toyota came in and grabbed early lead-and they are a profitable company, as opposed to the domestic big three which are bleeding red ink daily and just recently sta
  • by topham (32406) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @09:04PM (#15536735) Homepage
    RIM wouldn't want unlimited networking available to just anyone.

    They prefer to negotiate with the carriers so their users can have unlimited network access, while everyone else pays through the nose.

    A little self-interest in limited access to the wireless network. No surprise.
  • by Sanity (1431) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @09:11PM (#15536763) Homepage Journal
    There was a very small group of us, but despite being kicked out almost immediately, we did manage to flier a number of people, and attract some attention.

    Personally, I think DBD should continue to target Apple, rather than moving on to movie studios, since the media companies (with the exception of Sony) couldn't impose DRM without the cooperation of companies like Apple.

    Lessons learned from the protest:

    • Don't organize a protest on private property (such as in a mall), security can and almost certainly will ask you to leave
    • Spend more than 2 days organizing it so that you can attract more people - possibly contact local user groups likely to be sympathetic
    • I think most of us applaud you for going out and trying to inform people that DRM exists and is not the only way, but I gotta ask, if I'm willing to give up my fair use rights and buy a DRM enabled device, what concern is it to you? The stated goal of Defective By Design is the abolition of DRM as a social practice. Why? If the content owners are only willing to distribute their works on devices that are DRM enabled then why shouldn't I be free to decide if I want to support them in doing so by buying a
      • But they won't be worse off and might even be better off if they do.
      • if I'm willing to give up my fair use rights and buy a DRM enabled device, what concern is it to you? If the content owners are only willing to distribute their works on devices that are DRM enabled then why shouldn't I be free to decide if I want to support them in doing so by buying a DRM enabled device.

        Because its' not only about what's being produced now, i.e. artists you might influence by voting with you wallet. Copyrights have also been acquired on large parts of XXth century cultural history --

        • You almost made an argument there. I could almost feel it. What are you trying to say? That DRM should be banned because it prevents works now under copyright from entering the public domain? That's a pretty silly argument isn't it? I mean, why not just pass a law that states that copyright holders must release their work from DRM when the copyright expires. Even better, why not require that copyright holders register a non-DRM copy of ttheir work with a library now.
          • why not just pass a law that states that copyright holders must release their work from DRM when the copyright expires. Even better, why not require that copyright holders register a non-DRM copy of ttheir work with a library now.
            That, I'd be fine with :-) Note then, that it will take more than just "voting with our wallets".
          • My opinion: DRM should be banned unless it complies with all of copyright law. That includes things like the length of copyright. If copyright law says the work passes into the public domain 70 years after the creator's death, then the DRM should allow the work to pass into the public domain then or be considered itself in violation of copyright law. The problem is that current DRM doesn't honor all of copyright law, only those parts the RIAA/MPAA want to have enforced.

            • WTF? I fail to understand how 'pass into the public domain' came to mean 'have no barriers to copying'. If the only copy you have of a work that is in the public domain is burdened by DRM, break the damn DRM. It's not like it's going to be hard to break it 70 years after it was invented. Jesus.
              • WTF? I fail to understand how 'pass into the public domain' came to mean 'have no barriers to copying'.

                You're making an assumption about the definition of barriers. You are thinking of physical, practical barriers, where the only consideration is, "Is it possible?" The other kind are legal barriers, where there is the consideration of, "Are you allowed to?" That is why the anti-DRM people are protesting. More on that below:

                If the only copy you have of a work that is in the public domain is burdened by D

          • It's going to be a long time before current copyrights expire. If the term is extended again, it may be hundreds of years. A law requiring someone to do something in a hundred years time is not likely to be effective.
            Registering just one non-DRM copy is not likely to be much use either. If the copyright owners have any sense, they will choose the cheapest, nastiest brand of CDRW they can find. It will be unreadable after hundreds of years, even if CD technology still exists.
      • DRM gives us strictly less than plain old copyright. If the choices from the content-distributor's perspective are: (1) don't distribute; (2) distribute under plain old copyright; (3) distribute under DRM, they will always choose the latter. But if the choices are only 1 or 2, we think very few will choose 2. What, you think Disney's just going to stop making movies? They didn't do so when VHS was all there was.

        We think a world in which choice 3 doesn't exist is strictly better for media users. In such
      • if I'm willing to give up my fair use rights and buy a DRM enabled device, what concern is it to you?

        Most of the problem is that many people who buy DRM devices only become aware of the restrictions after they have made their purchase. Furthermore, many people aren't aware that these devices often prevent you from doing things that are perfectly legal.

        My goal in participating in the DBD protests is to achieve the abolition of DRM by persuading people that it is in their interests not to buy devices th

    • Also for a general advocacy protest (where civil dissobedience is innapropriate -- as it generally is unless you are attempting to directly interfere with a police or state action) register your event. If you're large enough, the cops have every right to break up your demonstration for obstructing traffic.
  • spyware is a crime. they are hiding things and forcing them onto our personal property. the government should not be the only protection but it should make these crimes prosecutable.
  • by kbahey (102895) on Wednesday June 14, 2006 @09:52PM (#15536943) Homepage
    Actually, let us look at a parallel here.

    The internet started as dialup, and took too different paths in separate parts of the world.

    In North America, local calls are free, and dialing a local number for internet access was one reason why the net became so popular and successful, and why lots of innovation happens in the USA as far as the net is concerned.

    In most of the rest of the world, local phone calls are not free, and therefore the internet is metered. People using dialup have to be aware of the time they spend on the net, lest they run up the bill (think BBS's in another area code that you call long distance).

    So, did unlimited dialup access spur innovation? I think so. Would the same be true for wireless? You bet!

    Look at how cell phones are doing in North America vs. the world. The world has GSM where you are not tied to a provider you buy the handset from, and you do not pay for received calls. The contrary is true in North America.

    Greed is the barrier to innovation.
    • So, did unlimited dialup access spur innovation? I think so. Would the same be true for wireless? You bet!

      It's not the same though, with dialup, you had your own personal copper, your bandwidth all to yourself. With wireless, you don't have that, you have a finite total bandwidth based on a finite number of frequencies that everyone shares.

      Those who disagree, don't deny there is a limited amount of bandwidth, they argue that technology will continue to increase bandwidth at the rate, or greater, tha
    • Look at how cell phones are doing in North America vs. the world. The world has GSM where you are not tied to a provider you buy the handset from, and you do not pay for received calls. The contrary is true in North America.

      Last time I checked, if you didn't want to take advantage of promotional pricing for a new phone through your carrier, you could always buy the phone retail. In other words, much like GSM phones, "unlocked" or retail CDMA phones can be used on just about any CDMA carrier. GSM phones ca

    • Just a quick FYI... local calls are not free in all parts of North America (or the USA for that matter). In VT, there are local per minute costs upto a cap of about $20. put this on top of the $30-40 normal phone bill (not including long distance) and you're talking $50-$60 + $20 for local internet access. It certainly isn't cheap.

      Thankfully dialup access is a little cheaper now, but phone lines certainly arent. I'm sure this is certainly helping VOIP + Cable (though only maybe 20% of the state can get cabl
    • In terms of subscribers, GSM is approaching par with CDMA in North America. OTOH, there tends to be handset network locking, at least for a while after purchase, but that's because the providers subsidize the phones.
  • Just my $0.02 worth. Not meant as a troll, just me calling it as I see it.

    Oklahoma's Spyware Bill dies a quiet death.

    What do you expect from a bunch of dumb Okies? I'll look on the bright side: When their computers are so infected with malware as to be unusable, they won't be able to go to Republican hate sites [foxnews.com].

    Lenovo denies ditching Linux . . . 'Customers of the recently introduced Lenovo 3000 units still won't have a preloaded option, however, because the small and midsize business customers that are t
    • Isn't it interesting how the lion's share of the cool space-related stuff is unmanned? Even more reason to kill the Shuttle program.

      The budget for NASA's environmental science program has been eviscerated and several projects (including one sat that was completed and waiting for launch) have been killed so that the Shuttle program can continue. That'll show those namby-pamby hippy Global Warming types who's The Decider!
    • >telnet www.shelleytherepublican.com
      Linux 2.4.32-grsec+f6b+gr217+nfs+a32+fuse23+++opt+c6+gr2 b-v6.192 (oreo.dreamhost.com) (0)
      oreo login:
  • The FSF which has been threatening for years to modify the GPL so that anyone who OFFERS A SERVICE (e.g. an ASP) that uses GPLed software must abide by all sorts of special rules and restrictions. What is this but "pay per use" -- exactly what DRM does?
    • ...fails to see the difference. Well, not fails, really, but simply once again chooses to misrepresent the FSF and GPL in is long running anti-GPL campaign.

      Brett, of course, knows this, but just in case anyone else is confused: Asking that people who take GPL software, modify it, and use it to externally to make money, to then also redsitribute those changes, is nothing at all like DRM. Nobody is asking ASPs to pay money for the software, or for using the software. Nobody is trying to restrict their use of

  • Perhaps NASA should nickname the rover Houdini?

People are always available for work in the past tense.

Working...